Official Brett Kavanaugh Thread, Part 4

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ford unwilling to turn over therapist's notes to the SJC. These notes were leaked to Post and were referenced by Ford as corroborating her story under oath (though after the fact) to the SJC -- THE CON IS OVER

She offered to provide the notes to the FBI but they never showed up to interview her. If she provided them to the SJC, they would immediately be selectively leaked.

Because they weren't going to interview her and her lawyers knew it. Nor should they because, as you all keep saying, this isn't a criminal trial.

She can file a report and give them to the local police who have said over and over again they would be glad to help even if the statue of limitations has run out.

You can't have it both ways. If Grassley thinks the therapist's notes and other documents are important enough to request, they should are important enough for the FBI to review as part of its background investigation. It makes no sense that an investigation instigated by Ford's testimony wouldn't include an interview with her. It is clear to everyone that the White House restricted this investigation in order to achieve its desired outcome.

She shared them with the Washington Post, but not the senators, because you say they might be leaked? Leaked to who? She already shared them.

I think, frankly, her lawyers are lying (again). They have no intention of sharing those notes with the FBI, or anyone else, but favorable press.

Obviously she didn't share everything that the Committee wants. Otherwise they could just read them in the Post.

The Post has the notes. Why the secrecy unless they don't help her story?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A man’s life is shattered.

-Donald J. Trump 10/2/2018

He should have thought about his past before he put himself forward as a SCJ. Even *I* would not put myself forward for a public office because I partied when I was younger. And I never assaulted anyone. But if they started looking at my high school days, I hung around with some low lifes (think Judge) and was at some crazy parties. I wouldn't want to have to claim "I didn't inhale".

I think the lesson is, just be honest about your youthful indiscretions. It's not the sex, it's the cover up. it's not the underage drinking, it's the prevarication and obfuscation he engaged in. It's not the vomiting, it's that he lied when he said that "ralphing" was because he ate too much Thai food.

You can't lie to the Senate Judiciary Committee. And he did. Some of the lies were lies of omission, of refusal to answer, of minimizing "WE drank... only BEER... only on WEEKENDS" but you can't try to bamboozle under oath and expect to be a SCJ. The guy is a lawyer and a judge. Do you think he'd accept that behavior from a witness in his own courtroom?

He'd have held such a witness in contempt of court. But can he do so in the future? Can a judge be hypocritical from the bench? I guess so. But when a judge believes he is above the law, we have a crisis in the courtroom.

But why did he act that way? He was probably going to skate through in spite of the allegations until that moment.

Are you joking? I would have been surprised has he *not* acted angry. The man had been accused of something he completely denies. As another PP pointed out, the Dem. senators announced to Ford that they believed her - before she had even testified, and well before Kavanaugh had. Some called him "evil." His entire life has been combed through, he and his family are beyond mortified, and you ask why he acted "that way"?

So basically, you know nothing about the federal judiciary .

Gotcha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He lied about knowing Deborah Ramirez:



listed above is the description of the people in the photo.

Go back and read his testimony. He didn’t lie.
#LeftyLies #Desperation

Yes, he did. The desperation is all yours.

DP. No, he did not lie. He said the allegations were 35 years old and he denied them. He said nothing about "not knowing" Ramirez.

[Anonymous]

Drinking alcohol from another person's anus is apparently a thing. He did this. He enshrined the activity in his yearbook. Yearbook reference+the xoxohth post+the name "Bart O'Kavanaugh=coincidence?

And this is wrong how? #Liberty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious honest question. Is the secrecy of the new FBI report just because Grassley says so? Is this common?

Feinstein called for the secrecy, not Grassley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Julie Swetnick:

During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.

A.I.D.S. was a huge issue at the time. And I had children. Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her anymore. It put my head back on straight. That was the last conversation we had.

Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-02%20Signed%20Ketterer%20Statement%20-%20Swetnick%20Allegations.pdf

Have you looked up that Ketterer guy? He's a nut and a liar.

Anyone else finds it interesting that WH has prohibited FBI to talk to Swetnick or her witness, yet SJC is touting a letter from a nutcase to vilify her?

[Anonymous]

CNN reporter Elizabeth Landers tweeted, “(Feinstein) indicates that the FBI report on Kavanaugh should NOT be made public: ‘It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not. I think the investigation ought to be closely held,’ she (Feinstein) reiterated.”


BLAST THE FINDINGS AT EVERY TRUMP RALLY FROM NOW UNTIL ELECTION DAY!

[Anonymous]

It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

[Anonymous]

The yearbook a PP posted shows that Devil's Triangle and FFFF were memes to the GP class of '83. They are repeated in the write-ups of many, many seniors in that class. FFFF is used in captions to a number of pictures appearing in the yearbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious honest question. Is the secrecy of the new FBI report just because Grassley says so? Is this common?

Feinstein called for the secrecy, not Grassley

Feinstein seemed to have the idea that there would be lots of people in the report, that the FBI would talk to lots of people, that she was protecting their privacy. She was wrong. The FBI spoke to 6 people, all known to the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So much for Julie Swetnick:

During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

I asked her if this was just a fantasy of hers. She responded that she first tried sex with multiple guys while in high school and still liked it from time-to-time. She brought it up because she wanted to know if I would be interested in that.

A.I.D.S. was a huge issue at the time. And I had children. Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her anymore. It put my head back on straight. That was the last conversation we had.

Julie never said anything about being sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will. She never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2018-10-02%20Signed%20Ketterer%20Statement%20-%20Swetnick%20Allegations.pdf

Have you looked up that Ketterer guy? He's a nut and a liar.

Anyone else finds it interesting that WH has prohibited FBI to talk to Swetnick or her witness, yet SJC is touting a letter from a nutcase to vilify her?

Source. No one knows what the FBI has done or not done. It is all speculation. Can you cite a statement from the FBI to support your statement.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Have you worked for the FBI? If so, please explain why the FBI was only allowed to interview people approved by the White House. That sounds like a crazy way to do an investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's funny to read all of the comments about how the FBI should run the investigation. I guess everyone here has worked for the FBI and has insight into how the process should work.
Unless the FBI comes back with a complete indictment of Kavanaugh the left will not be happy and claim the White House interfered.
Such a joke.

Poor Kavanaugh. Even the WH doesns't trust that he's squeaky clean, so they curtailed the FBI investigation to make sure nothing bad came out (beyond what Judge told them). Kavanaugh isn't respected enough to get a real FBI investigation to clear his name. Instead he gets a limited investigation that will satisfy no one and leave his name blemished.

[Anonymous]

FFFFF = find, feel, finger, f***, forget

as Kavanaugh knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious honest question. Is the secrecy of the new FBI report just because Grassley says so? Is this common?

Feinstein called for the secrecy, not Grassley

Really? How do we know this? And why?